BlackBillBlake
12-17-2004, 12:16 AM
Questions and Answers
on
HOW TO KNOW GOD
Amit Goswami
Institute of Noetic Sciences
Sausalito, CA 94965, USA Summer 2000
http://img137.exs.cx/img137/1552/goswami5rp.jpg
Q: What is God?
A: Yes, it is most important to start our discussion with this question. Most people, when they think of God, think of a higher power, higher than their own ego. Some people do better; they think of God not only as higher power, but also as a creative power. Unfortunately, they also think of this power as outside of them, separate from them. Then there are of course influences of the so-called monotheistic religions many, who popularly portray God as transcendent and as being separate from the immanent world. So how we conceive God depends a lot on where we are in our spiritual evolution.
A turning about begins when we intuit that God is our own creative power; God may be the answer to the question, "Who am I?" At this point we may become interested in mystical teachings--God is everything, both transcendent and immanent, the one ground of all being. At this point it is matter of exploring and finding it out for ourselves.
Part of the problem is also language: God sounds like a person, it is hard to overcome that tendency of thinking. When we convert the question "What is God?" to "Who am I?", we are allowing the possibility that the question is about the nature of our consciousness. Of course, we can think of consciousness also dualistically either as separate from matter or monistically--all is consciousness. So, to summarize, there are these two ways of looking at God or consciousness, or if you want a less emotionally loaded word, there are two metaphysical or ontological positions. One dualistic, the popular one. The other monistic or nondualistic.
One last comment. Some traditions make a subtle distinction between God, the agency of creation, and the ground of being, which they variously call Godhead, Brahman, etc.
Q: What does science say about these metaphysical positions? Let's be specific. We all know science scoffs at dualistic notions of God as in popular Christianity. Why?
A: If God and the world are separate, made of different substances, then how do the two worlds, the God-world or God-substance and the material world of material substance, interact? Their interaction needs a mediator, but where is it? And then there is the question of the conservation of energy. The energy of the material world alone is conserved, always remains the same. But any interaction with the God world (as when God acts on this world with His creative power) would require exchange of energy involving a violation of energy conservation. It is this kind of arguments, simple but elegant, that keeps scientists at bay from endorsing dualistic religious positions.
Q: So what then is science’s problem with the monistic non-dual metaphysics of God? Why aren’t a majority of scientists embracing that position?
A: This one is subtle. Obviously, science must accept and does, that there is only one "substance" or being in reality. Otherwise we get into the problem of dualism. The question is, is that substance matter, or is it some kind of "God substance" that is the basic being? The success of a materialist metaphysics--the idea that everything is made of matter including mind, consciousness, God--now causes a conceptual conundrum. Is God needed?
In eighteenth century, the physicist Laplace, upon explaining astronomy on the basis of the material metaphysics alone declared, "I do not need that (God) hypothesis." Darwin repeated the same contention in biology with his evolution theory; the biological case was made almost foolproof with the discovery of molecular biology. In psychology, Freud, Watson and Skinner, all sang the glory of a materialist metaphysics in their revolutionary investigations. In contrast, the case for a monistic consciousness, consciousness as the ground of being, has become serious only recently within science. It will take a while before this idea catches on.
Q: Will you give us some details of the winds of change in science’s position from material monism to a monism based on consciousness?
A: The crucial question again is, Is God needed? All scientists subscribe to the philosophy of parsimony (Occam’s razor): if an idea is not needed, theoretically or experimentally or both, why use it? But in recent years, both theoretical and experimental gaps, sometimes big holes, have been found in the matter-based science. First, Carl Jung found, from his case studies in psychotherapy, that therapy works better when one ventures outside of the materialist models of psychology, with concepts such as intuition (which is creative and beyond reason), collective unconscious (which is non-local and beyond the materialist dogma of locality), and synchronicity (which is beyond materialist models of upward causation). Later, Abraham Maslow and others discovered the same thing in their psychological study of people: the answer to "who am I?" must involve a self beyond the behavioral ego, a transpersonal self, for those people who can be said to have "positive mental health."
Second, the materialist ontology from the very inception of quantum physics was found to be inadequate for understanding quantum phenomena. Quantum phenomena clearly show discontinuity (as in the Bohr atom) and non-locality (as demonstrated by the celebrated Aspect’s experiment). And the quantum measurement problem -- how quantum waves of possibility that quantum mathematics calculates for objects to become experienced events--cannot be solved without the assertion of downward causation. The great mathematician John von Neumann first saw this. Von Neumann’s ideas were originally dualistic. I made a contribution showing that the quantum measurement problem can be solved with philosophical rigor only if we assert that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being.
Third, Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge discovered punctuated equilibrium in biological evolution--evolution consists of more than Darwinian gradual variation/selection chance and necessity mechanisms. There are punctuation marks in an otherwise continuous prose of Darwinian evolution. Experimentally, they show up as the "missing links" in the fossil data. Theoretically, they point to a non-Darwinian process in evolution with a faster tempo, maybe even a discontinuity, a quantum leap. Rupert Sheldrake made a breakthrough jump from materialist thinking by proposing non-local morphogenetic fields as essential for understanding biological morphogenesis--the building of form from a one-cell embryo. More recently, I myself have been able to develop a theory in which consciousness creatively intervenes in evolution producing the quantum leaps of speciation--the punctuation marks referred to above. My theory also nicely incorporates Sheldrake’s ideas and produces the much-needed understanding of the roll of development in evolution.
Fourth, in medicine, there has been an accumulation of many cases of mind-body healing, clearly demonstrating "mind over body." But if mind is brain, then how can it cause healing? The physician Deepak Chopra was the first to suggest a model of mind-body healing by proposing that it is quantum healing and works because of the quantum nature of mind and body working on a substratum of consciousness which is the ground of being.
Fifth, there is also much data that are classified under the label "paranormal," telepathy, survival after death and reincarnation, and such. Mainstream science still scoffs at this data. But the sheer volume of it is getting a lot of attention from the public. This data can only be accommodated with a consciousness-based science.
Sixth, I must also mention the philosopher David Chalmers’ work. Chalmers pointed out that the subject-object split awareness that we experience is a "hard question" of consciousness that neurophysiologists are not studying — maybe they cannot study it. If we start with objects or algorithms, we always get to stay at the same level: objects beget objects, and input statements beget output statements, never a subject looking at objects or a subject examining the output statement. This is a very brief summary, of course. Many other scientists have contributed to the monistic consciousness-based paradigm that is now developing. The good news about the new paradigm is that it is inclusive. It includes the old science; does not entirely reject it. And it promises an integration of science and spirituality.
Q: But many mainstream scientists remain skeptical about any integration of science and spirituality. Why?
A: Scientists are distrustful of the consciousness-based ontology because:
1) they do not see a clear epistemology--the answer to how to know reality (God) question; and
2) they think that the mythology used in spiritual traditions involves faith, which they interpret as holding a belief system without verification. This, they think, is fundamentally against the scientific method, where skeptical inquiry is essential. What is happening right now is that the new paradigm scientists are addressing the epistemological question within science. Witness Chopra’s recent book, How To Know God. When I wrote my book The Self-Aware Universe, I too devoted a considerable effort to the epistemological question that is further developed in my new book: The Visionary Window: A Quantum Physicist’s Guide To Enlightenment. And frankly, most scientists just miss the spiritual methodology, that it is entirely the same as the scientific methodology. The truth is, the scientific method is not fully based on rational thinking. It crucially involves creativity, creative insights of intuitive quantum leaps (read my book Quantum Creativity). And scientists, too, must begin with faith, not looked upon as a static belief system, but a conviction in an intuition of the value of the inquiry. Spritual faith, if one looks closely, is no more than that. You inquire into "What is God?" or "Who am I?" because you have a faith that reality is more than it seems at first. Both science and spiritual inquiry are based on our intuition that bulk of reality is "uncommon sense" to use Robert Oppenheimer’s phrase.
on
HOW TO KNOW GOD
Amit Goswami
Institute of Noetic Sciences
Sausalito, CA 94965, USA Summer 2000
http://img137.exs.cx/img137/1552/goswami5rp.jpg
Q: What is God?
A: Yes, it is most important to start our discussion with this question. Most people, when they think of God, think of a higher power, higher than their own ego. Some people do better; they think of God not only as higher power, but also as a creative power. Unfortunately, they also think of this power as outside of them, separate from them. Then there are of course influences of the so-called monotheistic religions many, who popularly portray God as transcendent and as being separate from the immanent world. So how we conceive God depends a lot on where we are in our spiritual evolution.
A turning about begins when we intuit that God is our own creative power; God may be the answer to the question, "Who am I?" At this point we may become interested in mystical teachings--God is everything, both transcendent and immanent, the one ground of all being. At this point it is matter of exploring and finding it out for ourselves.
Part of the problem is also language: God sounds like a person, it is hard to overcome that tendency of thinking. When we convert the question "What is God?" to "Who am I?", we are allowing the possibility that the question is about the nature of our consciousness. Of course, we can think of consciousness also dualistically either as separate from matter or monistically--all is consciousness. So, to summarize, there are these two ways of looking at God or consciousness, or if you want a less emotionally loaded word, there are two metaphysical or ontological positions. One dualistic, the popular one. The other monistic or nondualistic.
One last comment. Some traditions make a subtle distinction between God, the agency of creation, and the ground of being, which they variously call Godhead, Brahman, etc.
Q: What does science say about these metaphysical positions? Let's be specific. We all know science scoffs at dualistic notions of God as in popular Christianity. Why?
A: If God and the world are separate, made of different substances, then how do the two worlds, the God-world or God-substance and the material world of material substance, interact? Their interaction needs a mediator, but where is it? And then there is the question of the conservation of energy. The energy of the material world alone is conserved, always remains the same. But any interaction with the God world (as when God acts on this world with His creative power) would require exchange of energy involving a violation of energy conservation. It is this kind of arguments, simple but elegant, that keeps scientists at bay from endorsing dualistic religious positions.
Q: So what then is science’s problem with the monistic non-dual metaphysics of God? Why aren’t a majority of scientists embracing that position?
A: This one is subtle. Obviously, science must accept and does, that there is only one "substance" or being in reality. Otherwise we get into the problem of dualism. The question is, is that substance matter, or is it some kind of "God substance" that is the basic being? The success of a materialist metaphysics--the idea that everything is made of matter including mind, consciousness, God--now causes a conceptual conundrum. Is God needed?
In eighteenth century, the physicist Laplace, upon explaining astronomy on the basis of the material metaphysics alone declared, "I do not need that (God) hypothesis." Darwin repeated the same contention in biology with his evolution theory; the biological case was made almost foolproof with the discovery of molecular biology. In psychology, Freud, Watson and Skinner, all sang the glory of a materialist metaphysics in their revolutionary investigations. In contrast, the case for a monistic consciousness, consciousness as the ground of being, has become serious only recently within science. It will take a while before this idea catches on.
Q: Will you give us some details of the winds of change in science’s position from material monism to a monism based on consciousness?
A: The crucial question again is, Is God needed? All scientists subscribe to the philosophy of parsimony (Occam’s razor): if an idea is not needed, theoretically or experimentally or both, why use it? But in recent years, both theoretical and experimental gaps, sometimes big holes, have been found in the matter-based science. First, Carl Jung found, from his case studies in psychotherapy, that therapy works better when one ventures outside of the materialist models of psychology, with concepts such as intuition (which is creative and beyond reason), collective unconscious (which is non-local and beyond the materialist dogma of locality), and synchronicity (which is beyond materialist models of upward causation). Later, Abraham Maslow and others discovered the same thing in their psychological study of people: the answer to "who am I?" must involve a self beyond the behavioral ego, a transpersonal self, for those people who can be said to have "positive mental health."
Second, the materialist ontology from the very inception of quantum physics was found to be inadequate for understanding quantum phenomena. Quantum phenomena clearly show discontinuity (as in the Bohr atom) and non-locality (as demonstrated by the celebrated Aspect’s experiment). And the quantum measurement problem -- how quantum waves of possibility that quantum mathematics calculates for objects to become experienced events--cannot be solved without the assertion of downward causation. The great mathematician John von Neumann first saw this. Von Neumann’s ideas were originally dualistic. I made a contribution showing that the quantum measurement problem can be solved with philosophical rigor only if we assert that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being.
Third, Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge discovered punctuated equilibrium in biological evolution--evolution consists of more than Darwinian gradual variation/selection chance and necessity mechanisms. There are punctuation marks in an otherwise continuous prose of Darwinian evolution. Experimentally, they show up as the "missing links" in the fossil data. Theoretically, they point to a non-Darwinian process in evolution with a faster tempo, maybe even a discontinuity, a quantum leap. Rupert Sheldrake made a breakthrough jump from materialist thinking by proposing non-local morphogenetic fields as essential for understanding biological morphogenesis--the building of form from a one-cell embryo. More recently, I myself have been able to develop a theory in which consciousness creatively intervenes in evolution producing the quantum leaps of speciation--the punctuation marks referred to above. My theory also nicely incorporates Sheldrake’s ideas and produces the much-needed understanding of the roll of development in evolution.
Fourth, in medicine, there has been an accumulation of many cases of mind-body healing, clearly demonstrating "mind over body." But if mind is brain, then how can it cause healing? The physician Deepak Chopra was the first to suggest a model of mind-body healing by proposing that it is quantum healing and works because of the quantum nature of mind and body working on a substratum of consciousness which is the ground of being.
Fifth, there is also much data that are classified under the label "paranormal," telepathy, survival after death and reincarnation, and such. Mainstream science still scoffs at this data. But the sheer volume of it is getting a lot of attention from the public. This data can only be accommodated with a consciousness-based science.
Sixth, I must also mention the philosopher David Chalmers’ work. Chalmers pointed out that the subject-object split awareness that we experience is a "hard question" of consciousness that neurophysiologists are not studying — maybe they cannot study it. If we start with objects or algorithms, we always get to stay at the same level: objects beget objects, and input statements beget output statements, never a subject looking at objects or a subject examining the output statement. This is a very brief summary, of course. Many other scientists have contributed to the monistic consciousness-based paradigm that is now developing. The good news about the new paradigm is that it is inclusive. It includes the old science; does not entirely reject it. And it promises an integration of science and spirituality.
Q: But many mainstream scientists remain skeptical about any integration of science and spirituality. Why?
A: Scientists are distrustful of the consciousness-based ontology because:
1) they do not see a clear epistemology--the answer to how to know reality (God) question; and
2) they think that the mythology used in spiritual traditions involves faith, which they interpret as holding a belief system without verification. This, they think, is fundamentally against the scientific method, where skeptical inquiry is essential. What is happening right now is that the new paradigm scientists are addressing the epistemological question within science. Witness Chopra’s recent book, How To Know God. When I wrote my book The Self-Aware Universe, I too devoted a considerable effort to the epistemological question that is further developed in my new book: The Visionary Window: A Quantum Physicist’s Guide To Enlightenment. And frankly, most scientists just miss the spiritual methodology, that it is entirely the same as the scientific methodology. The truth is, the scientific method is not fully based on rational thinking. It crucially involves creativity, creative insights of intuitive quantum leaps (read my book Quantum Creativity). And scientists, too, must begin with faith, not looked upon as a static belief system, but a conviction in an intuition of the value of the inquiry. Spritual faith, if one looks closely, is no more than that. You inquire into "What is God?" or "Who am I?" because you have a faith that reality is more than it seems at first. Both science and spiritual inquiry are based on our intuition that bulk of reality is "uncommon sense" to use Robert Oppenheimer’s phrase.